Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Focus Forum, Ford Focus ST Forum, Ford Focus RS Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

What I Drive

Year, color, and model of your car. Example: 2003 Pitch Black ZX3

Name

Your real name.

City

State

Country

Insurance

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically retrieve titles from external links

Topic Review (Newest First)

01-11-2013 11:42 PM

SydneyRoo

the stupid part is..... we canadians don't even use gallons. Not Imperial gallons, not US gallons. We use litres.

And at that, if you do buy a gallon of something (ie, washer fluid), it's sold by the US gallon.

The '13 Fiesta is closer in weight and size to the '95 Civic than either the '13 Focus or the '13 Civic. Probably would get you similar fuel economy, too. Newtonian physics still rule the day.

01-08-2013 11:35 PM

thisisbenji

Quote:

Originally Posted by felixdd

Even for a manual?

Yup. For the first few years I drove manual (in my 95 civic 1.6l vtec) I would coast in N to stops. I averaged about 34-36 MPG, yet when I started downshifting to a stop my mileage instantly shot up to above 40 MPG every tank usually at about 42. The cool thing about that car is you could feel the exact RPM that the ECU started to give the car fuel as the RPMs fell. So if I was coasting to a stop in 3rd gear I could feel when the fuel came back on, I would downshift just before that point.

I miss that car (my younger sister has it now), I might try to steal it back. The gas mileage was so much better than the Focus.

01-07-2013 10:17 AM

kam327

Quote:

Originally Posted by c5karl

I've seen this mentioned on this forum several times, but are we sure the Focus has this feature? This Ford document, dated last June, does not list the Focus as one of the cars with ADFSO.

Maybe it doesn't. I thought this feature was almost universal but maybe not. Seems odd that Ford would go through the trouble of installing active grille shutters and not this, but maybe it's harder to implement on cars with manual gearboxes or DCTs. Learn something new every day...

That is an old and incomplete list of specific vehicles mentioned that have ADFSO, its basically already been confirmed that the 2012+ Focus does infact have ADFSO based on scangauge readings and reports from Ford engineers.

Maybe it doesn't. I thought this feature was almost universal but maybe not. Seems odd that Ford would go through the trouble of installing active grille shutters and not this, but maybe it's harder to implement on cars with manual gearboxes or DCTs. There are are posts here that seem to conclude the Focus has this feature, but maybe it isn't the "aggressive" fuel cut-off described in the Ford document.

01-07-2013 08:56 AM

c5karl

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan50

This has been said before, but to maximize fuel economy don't coast in neutral. While this seems counterintuitive, when coasting in gear fuel supply is generally cut-off as the mechanical connection to the wheels keeps the engine "running". If you shift to neutral, fuel has to be supplied to accomplish the same thing. This won't make a big difference, but manufacturers engineer it this way for a reason.

I've seen this mentioned on this forum several times, but are we sure the Focus has this feature? This Ford document, dated last June, does not list the Focus as one of the cars with ADFSO.

Does the "don't coaset in neutral" thing apply for manual cars too then?

The US EPA rating system changed in '08 and used to be more optimistic too. The '07 Focus window sticker said 27/34, but the "new" ratings (under the '08 system) on fueleconomy.gov are 23/31. That would suggest that the '12 Focus manual would be rated at 29/39 under the old system, much closer to the current Canadian rating of 30/42.

01-07-2013 05:47 AM

suss6052

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublej

Hello "suss6052", your calculations might change if you use the right conversion factor.... 4.54 litres to a imperial gallon compared to your US gallon which is only 3.78 litres.

The calculation is correct even if I wrote down a slightly lower number for the imperial gallon, the point wasn't the specific size so much as it was the fact that the imperial gallon contains 20% more volume and therefore the published figures are 20% apart before accounting for differences in test methodologies.

Therefore subtracting the energy difference (a factor of 20%) the only remaining difference is that of the tests run to get the fuel economy figures.

01-07-2013 05:41 AM

doublej

Hello "suss6052", your calculations might change if you use the right conversion factor.... 4.54 litres to a imperial gallon compared to your US gallon which is only 3.78 litres.

This thread has more than 10 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.